Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

lunduniversity.lu.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 207 posts

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#171

Post by moi2388 »

Eduard wrote: post #151
gumby wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We ended up using India ink, which (according to the encyclopedia of ink* ) is mainly soot. We were able to isolate it in the HPLC and through some histopath experiments show that it didn’t have any negative local effect between (IIRC) seven and 60 days. Why those times? Protocol was to tattoo on day 0, wait a week for the site to recover, then inject our experimental material on day 7, sacrificing subject animals at…

But soot is carcinogenic, no? And with soot consisting of nanoparticles small enough to cross the blood-brain barrier, I can imagine a chance of soot-based tattoo substances diffusing into the brain.

He did not need to show it was safe, only that it did not interfere with the study

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#174

Post by iamacyborg »

plasma_beam wrote: post #2

If the correlation is proven true then that’s obviously terrible, but I’m in my mid 40s now, tattoo-less, and one of my biggest regrets is not getting a couple tattoos when I was younger. I feel like doing it now looks like a midlife crisis type thing. I always wanted one of those Thai tattoos where they manually tap tap tap the design into your skin with a mallet.

On the bright side, you presumably have more developed taste and a bigger budget than your average tattoo client which means you could go get something really good.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#175

Post by hnbad »

lostlogin wrote: post #160
zolbrek wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tattoo inks are regulated in the EU, my tattoo artist wasn't happy about the regulations when they were first announced a few years ago.

Some of the regulated ones still cause issues. Had one that was used to give someone eyebrows that got all toasty in an MR scanner.

More importantly, just because tattoo ink is regulated doesn't mean discount tattoo parlors don't use cheap imports or old surplus that don't meet regulations. There are tattoo parlors that will tattoo intoxicated people (which you shouldn't do for a number of reasons ranging from consent to health risks and excessive bleeding) because they're their main source of income, there are likely many that use ink that isn't entirely above board.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#176

Post by hnbad »

m463 wrote: post #169
zolbrek wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tattoo inks are regulated in the EU, my tattoo artist wasn't happy about the regulations when they were first announced a few years ago.

sounds like lots of regulations. Stuff gets worse to get better. rohs solder. Leaded paints, enamel paints, water based paints. cars with smog pumps and catalytic converters.

ROHS solder, aka lead-free solder, is more difficult to work with so "worse", sure, but on the flip side you don't inhale lead fumes which accumulate in your body (i.e. will never leave your body) and have the delayed effect of causing lead poisoning which can do anything from making you stupider to literally killing you. I'd say the good outweighs the bad here and maybe leaded solder shouldn't be sold to amateurs who don't work in labs under vents.

I'm not sure what you're arguing for. Keep selling products that disable and kill people until the technology improves and the market selects for the superior product? Because history has demonstrated that that rarely works out as long as the option that kills and disables people is cheap enough to outweigh the immediate drawbacks. Especially when consumers think they're immune.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#177

Post by robin_reala »

tempestn wrote: post #134
esperent wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tattoos are so common these days that I'm not sure you can say much about a person just because they have tattoos.

Any given person, for sure. In aggregate though I bet you'd find correlations.

Not sure you could in Sweden. Stats[1] show 21% tattoo prevalance in Sweden compared to 12% in the EU in general.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10163470/

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#178

Post by alpaca128 »

hnbad wrote: post #176
m463 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sounds like lots of regulations. Stuff gets worse to get better. rohs solder. Leaded paints, enamel paints, water based paints. cars with smog pumps and catalytic converters.

ROHS solder, aka lead-free solder, is more difficult to work with so "worse", sure, but on the flip side you don't inhale lead fumes which accumulate in your body (i.e. will never leave your body) and have the delayed effect of causing lead poisoning which can do anything from making you stupider to literally killing you. I'd say the good outweighs the bad here and maybe leaded solder shouldn't be sold to amateurs wh…

> lead-free solder, is more difficult to work with

This kind of statement always puzzles me. Leaded solder was an absolute nightmare to use for me, after the switch to the lead-free one I was suddenly much better at soldering within minutes. It was like going from square to round wheels.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#179

Post by istultus »

Galatians4_16 wrote: post #149
boppo1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> barred from investigating the effect on humans Wait they're legally prevented from investigating tattoo inks? Why?

Isn't the FDA the same agency that authorized the use of Thalidomide for pregnant women, and then much later deauthorized it due to birth defects?

Nice case of mood affiliation - "FDA bad therefore remember inverse of reality"

There was a swift ban on Thalidomide and the FDA went to the extreme of removing fertile women from all trials for the next 60 years, leading to 2nd order effects like Ambien car crashes.

Re: Possible association between tattoos and lymphoma

#180

Post by istultus »

Eduard wrote: post #151
gumby wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We ended up using India ink, which (according to the encyclopedia of ink* ) is mainly soot. We were able to isolate it in the HPLC and through some histopath experiments show that it didn’t have any negative local effect between (IIRC) seven and 60 days. Why those times? Protocol was to tattoo on day 0, wait a week for the site to recover, then inject our experimental material on day 7, sacrificing subject animals at…

But soot is carcinogenic, no? And with soot consisting of nanoparticles small enough to cross the blood-brain barrier, I can imagine a chance of soot-based tattoo substances diffusing into the brain.

As with everything it's a function of dose. A few molecules of soot entering the brain will trigger some cleanup and the glia cells will suck it up.

Breathing soot every day and caking your lungs with it over time raises your risk of cancer.

If our body was not built to handle homeopathic doses of toxins, we'd all be dead.

Post reply on HN